On February 2nd, 2024 the LUPC released its draft ruling in response to Wolfden Resources second attempt to rezone land adjacent to Pickett Mountain Pond. The 109 page document makes clear that Wolfden again failed to provide substantial evidence to justify rezoning the land from a General Management to a Planned Development (D-PD)
subdistrict to allow for the development of a gold, lead, silver, copper, and zinc mine adjacent to Pickett Mountain Pond.
Among the Commission Findings: READ THE FULL MEMO HERE
"[T]he Commission finds the proposed rezoning would have an undue adverse impact on water resources, fisheries, and aquatic life because there is credible evidence in the record that shows a significant risk of adverse impacts to these resources from acid rock drainage and potential spills of hazardous materials..."
"The Commission sees potential socioeconomic benefits accrued from the Project as short-term and subject to volatility, whereas potential pollution from the Project could persist for hundreds of years, based the record of the mining industry when mining VMS deposits (Findings 52 and 193). Given the history of the mining industry; the lack of an example of a similar mine that meets environmental regulations; research showing that mines frequently fail to meet water quality standards, negatively impacting surface water (Finding 98); and the value and sensitivity of the water resources in the area (Findings 72 and 87), the Commission disagrees with Wolfden’s statement that choosing between the local economy and the environment is a false narrative."
"[T]he Commission has found that the proposal will not retain the principal values of the
CLUP, does not represent a sustainable pattern of land use, and does not meet several CLUP
goals on which the Commission places significant weight (location of development, plant and animal habitat resources, and water resources). Additionally, Wolfden has not demonstrated that the Project could represent environmentally responsible exploration and mining, and there are overriding public values requiring protection. Therefore, the Commission finds the Project is not consistent with the CLUP."
"Based on the Commission’s findings on consistency with the CLUP and its findings on the
applicable statutory criteria and regulatory standards, with the most weight given to findings that the project does not represent environmentally responsible mining (Finding 221); there are overriding, conflicting public values that require protection, particularly the high-value water resources surrounding and downgradient of the Project Area (Finding 222); and the Project will have an undue adverse impact on water resources (Finding 108); the Commission finds that the Application is not consistent with Ch. 206-A. Specifically, in light of these findings, the Commission concludes that the project is not consistent with the purpose and scope provided by statute as it would not represent “sound planning, zoning and development,” and would not be consistent with the Commission’s statutory charge to “support … Maine's natural resource-based economy and strong environmental protections;” prevent “commercial and industrial uses detrimental to the long-term health, use and value of” the areas within the Commission’s jurisdiction; “prevent the despoliation, pollution and detrimental uses of the water in these areas; and … conserve ecological and natural values.”
"Based upon the above analysis and findings:
1. The Commission concludes that the Applicant has not provided substantial evidence that the proposed land use districts are consistent with the standard for district boundaries in effect at this time, and thus has not met the corresponding requirements of 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(8-A)(A), restated in Chapter 12, § 4(B)(1)(a) based on Findings 196-197.
2. The Commission concludes that the Applicant has not provided substantial evidence that the proposed land use districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and thus has not met the corresponding requirements of 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(8-A)(A), restated in Chapter 12, §4(B)(1)(a) based on Finding 223.
3. The Commission concludes that the Applicant has not provided substantial evidence that the proposed land use districts will have no undue adverse impact on existing uses or resources, and thus has not met the corresponding requirements of 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(8-A)(B), restated in Chapter 12, § 4(B)(1)(b) based on Finding 108.
4. The Commission concludes approval of the petition would not be an act of sound land use planning, and that the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the purpose, intent and provisions 12 M.R.S. Ch. 206-A, and thus has not met the corresponding requirements of 12 M.R.S. § 685-A(8-A)(A), restated in Chapter 12, § 4(B)(1)(a) based on Finding 230.
Therefore, the Commission DENIES the Rezoning Application ZP 779A submitted by Wolfden Mt. Chase LLC to rezone 374 acres from General Management (M-GN) and Shoreland Protection (P-SL2) subdistricts to a (D-PD) Planned Development subdistrict." And yet, Wolfden's Press Release to investors on the Draft Denial still has the audacity to claim: "On every key point, Commission staff concluded that the evidence weighed in favor of approval"